What Should the U.S. Do About the Arab Revolts?

[Marat]

Popular uprisings are now taking place in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen, and most importantly, these revolts suggest that a kind of domino effect is operative, where the more success the first uprising has the more it inspires the people of other countries to rise up.

 

The U.S. seems to be caught in a difficult situation by these events. On the one hand, the U.S. poses as the champion of democracy, liberal freedoms, and probative government, but on the other hand, it has allied itself with unpopular dictatorships throughout the Arab world in support of its more pragmatic geopolitical interests. Arab regimes which are non-democratic make the best allies of the U.S., since their leaders lack domestic support and so must look to the U.S. to sustain them, which gives the U.S. greater control over them. Non-democratic Arab regimes are also more likely to do what the U.S. tells them to, since they can more easily resist the demands which their domestic populations make on them for anti-U.S. policies. So the U.S. either has to appear before the world as a hypocrite and abandon its liberal, democratic international agenda by supporting these regimes against their people, or it has to side with the uprisings and thus undermine its interest in keeping its allied regimes in power.

 

The greatest danger may be that if these and other Arab states became democratic, the people would opt for Islamic extremism as their preferred form of government, so the danger of terrorism would suddenly and dramatically increase as the number of terrorist-supporting countries grew. If the events in Iran in 1979, when the U.S. lost a dictatorial ally because he was replaced by a popular mullahtocracy, were suddenly to be replicated in three, four, or five Arab countries, that could be the most dramatic international development since the collapse of Communism, and probably far worse for U.S. interests than the defeat in Vietnam and the loss of Iran combined.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well it would be nice if we behaved such that our ideals were more respected than those of religious fundamentalists. We've done a lot of meddling in the Middle East and it's quite understandable that the people don't like us. That's quite problematic because it would seem we'd be better off not letting the people get their way, but then they just hate us even more. I would think that cultural exchange and democracy would be ideal. But when I consider how much influence one religion has in America with its guarantee of freedom of religion, it's pretty scary to imagine what it might be like in countries with less religious freedom. In short, I really have no idea what would be best.

[rigney]

Dominos, Chinese Checkers, or Monopoly? In a word, leave them the "FUCK" alone! Even water eventually finds its own level, and this will happen unless the good old U.S. of A. starts digging ditches for one or both of the combatants. Some myhem and blood shed? No doubt! But it shouldn't be our kids blood this time.

Edited January 27, 2011 by rigney

[imatfaal]

I an in the strange situation of agreeing in part with all three of the above posts. I cannot believe this administration or the next will be rushing to get involved in any way other than diplomatically.

 

I would also recommend that you read the link in swansont's most recent post in the diplomatic cables of doom thread - it seems that US diplomat's comments about the tunisian regime might already have had effect

Edited January 27, 2011 by imatfaal

[rigney]

I an in the strange situation of agreeing in part with all three of the above posts. I cannot believe this administration or the next will be rushing to get involved in any way other than diplomatically.

 

I would also recommend that you read the link in swansont's last post in the diplomatic cables of doom thread - it seems that US diplomat's comments about the tunisian regime might already have had effect

 

Diplomacy? Right now our diplomacy is at the bottom of the barrel. Unless it's a handout of money and aid, who the hell wants to talk to the United States about anything? We can't even tend our own problems.

[lemur]

The U.S. seems to be caught in a difficult situation by these events. On the one hand, the U.S. poses as the champion of democracy, liberal freedoms, and probative government, but on the other hand, it has allied itself with unpopular dictatorships throughout the Arab world in support of its more pragmatic geopolitical interests. Arab regimes which are non-democratic make the best allies of the U.S., since their leaders lack domestic support and so must look to the U.S. to sustain them, which gives the U.S. greater control over them. Non-democratic Arab regimes are also more likely to do what the U.S. tells them to, since they can more easily resist the demands which their domestic populations make on them for anti-U.S. policies. So the U.S. either has to appear before the world as a hypocrite and abandon its liberal, democratic international agenda by supporting these regimes against their people, or it has to side with the uprisings and thus undermine its interest in keeping its allied regimes in power.

This is an interesting analysis. It models democracy as regimes that cater to the will of the people, and regimes that don't cater to the will of the people are considered less democratic. The problem with this model is that it ignores the Hitler-referendum paradox; i.e. Hitler was elected by popular majority yet headed a repressive regime. A similar precedent can be found in US slaving-law before the 1860s civil war in which majority voting in any state could be used to allow slavery. These kinds of situations raise the general question of when a centralized regime or other elite power should be used to check and balance the popular will of a majority. Imo, it is quite naive to assume that democracy = majoritarian rule even when the will-of-majority that emerges is repressive of other aspects of civil democracy.

 

So I wouldn't quickly assume that just because US diplomats support an unpopular regime that this is automatically in conflict with the project of promoting democracy and freedom. Face it, there are MANY people who have no interest in democracy or any other politics EXCEPT as it facilitates maximum power and political dominance for their preferred ethno-national identity. They seek maximum power to achieve maximum territorial autonomy/sovereignty and they will use that power to achieve as strong a position in a global economy as possible while maximizing the ability to promote privileges among legitimate citizens while excluding non-citizens to the maximum extent possible. In other words, people are using democracy or any other form of government as nothing more than a tool to achieve collective domination of some over others (i.e. tribalism). Such interests are common among US citizens as much as they are among people with other citizenship, so this is a global struggle for democracy over ethno-national or other collectivist factionalism. Whether or not the US government pursues formal pro-democracy policies, there will always be widespread interest globally for overcoming ethno-national factionalism and subjugation of individuals to collectivist ideologies and exploitative inter-group relations. It's not as if the resistance to authoritarianism and collectivism emerged one day from thin air - it has always been the flip-side of the coin of authoritarian and/or collectivist power.

 

 

 

 

[Marat]

The problem is that the term 'democracy' has a broad semantic field, referring to everything from pure majority rule, regardless of how awful the policies are that it endorses, to that kind of distinct combination of formal elections, respect for the rule of law, constitutionally entrenched human rights, and lack of government corruption which is often called 'democracy.' But I don't think the simplistic propaganda that the U.S. uses to advance its public image in foreign policy contexts wants to have to deal with the complication that these two senses of 'democracy' are often quite different. U.S. foreign policy got a jolt when the democratic majority of Palestinians voted for an illiberal government. The same sort of thing would happen on a massive scale if oppressive regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and perhaps some other Arab countries were removed and the resulting democratic will of the majority, finally freed to express itself, put Mullahtocracies in power and endorsed Sharia law.

 

U.S. discomfort with the fact the popular governments are not always liberal can be seen in the widespread propaganda effort to portray the last election in Iran as 'stolen,' since it could not possibly have been legitimate, since the favorite U.S. candidate and American ideology did not win. If anyone had bothered to check, however, they would have noticed that the ruler of Iran won his election against his rival by almost exactly the same percentage of votes as he beat his rival's protegee in the previous election. Since no one, inside or outside of Iran, disputed that earlier election result, why was the most recent election won against a clone of the former defeated candadidate suddenly so suspect?

[lemur]

The problem is that the term 'democracy' has a broad semantic field, referring to everything from pure majority rule, regardless of how awful the policies are that it endorses, to that kind of distinct combination of formal elections, respect for the rule of law, constitutionally entrenched human rights, and lack of government corruption which is often called 'democracy.' But I don't think the simplistic propaganda that the U.S. uses to advance its public image in foreign policy contexts wants to have to deal with the complication that these two senses of 'democracy' are often quite different.

Part of the problem with democracy is that it's anti-democratic to assign it authoritarian definitions and insist on those against public discussion of what democracy should mean and entail and why. Then, the problem with fighting authoritarian definitions is that an open democratic discourse attracts people who have an interest in seizing power through manipulation of the discourse to ends that favor their domination plan. You can say that US propaganda approach is simplistic, but do you also realize that formulating complex propaganda and policy results in definitional-authoritarianism where players will insist that they have fulfilled the formal criteria for democracy and use that as a basis for building up greater top-down control?

 

 

U.S. foreign policy got a jolt when the democratic majority of Palestinians voted for an illiberal government. The same sort of thing would happen on a massive scale if oppressive regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and perhaps some other Arab countries were removed and the resulting democratic will of the majority, finally freed to express itself, put Mullahtocracies in power and endorsed Sharia law.

Isn't this strategy of averting Sharia law too reactionary? Doesn't US policy need to take a more pro-active approach to supporting approaches to Islam that are sufficiently democratic. Or is the opposition Islam vs. democracy a fundamentally unalterable polarity because Islam rejects all Christian notions of freedom to self-government because it inherently leads to abuses of freedom?

 

U.S. discomfort with the fact the popular governments are not always liberal can be seen in the widespread propaganda effort to portray the last election in Iran as 'stolen,' since it could not possibly have been legitimate, since the favorite U.S. candidate and American ideology did not win. If anyone had bothered to check, however, they would have noticed that the ruler of Iran won his election against his rival by almost exactly the same percentage of votes as he beat his rival's protegee in the previous election. Since no one, inside or outside of Iran, disputed that earlier election result, why was the most recent election won against a clone of the former defeated candadidate suddenly so suspect?

US policy gets accused of inconsistency a lot, but again consider what the interest/motives would be of critics who cite inconsistency as a reason to back-off. Basically, it comes down to people wanting to repress US power and global intervention by whatever means possible, so they're never going to take a pro-active approach to critically agreeing or disagreeing with US interventionism on a case-by-case basis, as they should. Instead they're going to consistently apply the logic of "undermine the outsider in total" in order to pursue a purification-approach to autonomous sovereignty within a bounded territory. This, as far as I can tell, is their main approach to global politics - i.e. anti-interventionism. That is a reactionary attitude that should be replaced with recognition that the globe is constituted of numerous interests that can collaborate with each other in various ways to achieve things. Democracy is about indentifying goals and communicating constructively with others about how such goals can be achieved. This requires going beyond undermining others for "meddling" in 'private' regional business.

 

 

[CaptainPanic]

The greatest danger may be that if these and other Arab states became democratic, the people would opt for Islamic extremism as their preferred form of government, so the danger of terrorism would suddenly and dramatically increase as the number of terrorist-supporting countries grew. If the events in Iran in 1979, when the U.S. lost a dictatorial ally because he was replaced by a popular mullahtocracy, were suddenly to be replicated in three, four, or five Arab countries, that could be the most dramatic international development since the collapse of Communism, and probably far worse for U.S. interests than the defeat in Vietnam and the loss of Iran combined.

Given the fact that the US has little problems with religious regimes (only with terrorism and violence, but not with religion in itself), I see no reason why the US could not be at friendly terms with any newly elected democratic Islam government. Ok, it might be hard to swallow for some extremist Christian voters in certain states in the US... but it is downright silly to say that every Islam government just supports terrorism.

Why would such a government bite an ally?

 

I would suggest that the US hold most of the cards in this game... and it has the chance to play the game as it likes. One major threat, as I said, comes from within - the US voters who would under no circumstance accept any allegiance with a democratically chosen Islam government. US politicians are probably quite sensitive for that.

 

Note that Iran is a democracy as well, and its government was democratically chosen... and there were no reasons to claim fraud on a big scale at the last elections there.

[Marat]

I note that now some commentators are saying "Don't worry, if these present governments in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, etc. fall, the forces most likely to take control will be peaceful, reasonable, democratic ones." But the problem with this view is that revolutions usually evolve in two stages. In the first stage a supreme monarch is displaced by a reasonable and moderate revolutionary force (e.g., the French King deposed and people in favor of a constitutional monarchy take over; the Russian Tsar falls and Kerensky introduces a Parliamentary democracy; the Shah falls and Bakhtiar introduces a moderate government), but then in the second stage, the transitional moderate figure is replaced by dangerous and violent extremists (Robespierre and the 'Great Terror' in France; Lenin in Russia; Ayatollah Khomenei in Iran).

 

It seems likely that the same pattern might be repeated in the restive Arab states now. But if extremist governments are the ultimate inheritors of the now highly unstable power in these regions, then they may well support or provide bases, supplies, or cover for al Quaida, and then the War on Terrorism will assuredly be lost forever.

[lemur]

Given the fact that the US has little problems with religious regimes (only with terrorism and violence, but not with religion in itself), I see no reason why the US could not be at friendly terms with any newly elected democratic Islam government. Ok, it might be hard to swallow for some extremist Christian voters in certain states in the US... but it is downright silly to say that every Islam government just supports terrorism.

Why would such a government bite an ally?

 

I would suggest that the US hold most of the cards in this game... and it has the chance to play the game as it likes. One major threat, as I said, comes from within - the US voters who would under no circumstance accept any allegiance with a democratically chosen Islam government. US politicians are probably quite sensitive for that.

You're right that this is the official position that non-terrorist Islam is an ally to US freedom/democracy, but there is also a strong undercurrent of cynicism that views Islam as inherently terroristic because of the treatment of women, etc. You are also right about 'Christians' who are more interested in the fact that Muslims don't accept Christ as the son of God and the messiah than they are interested in having a moral ally against various aspects of liberalism. I think a big part of the problem with both is that neither really knows how to combine respect for cultural freedom with the right to exercise their own freedom of speech/religion. When they are caught up in pursuing their own interests, they fail to reflect on how they expect a liberal republic/democracy to function when there are various forms of Christianity and other religions along with feminism, secularism, etc. etc. that all have to interact constructively.

 

I note that now some commentators are saying "Don't worry, if these present governments in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, etc. fall, the forces most likely to take control will be peaceful, reasonable, democratic ones." But the problem with this view is that revolutions usually evolve in two stages. In the first stage a supreme monarch is displaced by a reasonable and moderate revolutionary force (e.g., the French King deposed and people in favor of a constitutional monarchy take over; the Russian Tsar falls and Kerensky introduces a Parliamentary democracy; the Shah falls and Bakhtiar introduces a moderate government), but then in the second stage, the transitional moderate figure is replaced by dangerous and violent extremists (Robespierre and the 'Great Terror' in France; Lenin in Russia; Ayatollah Khomenei in Iran).

Interesting data-pattern observation. Could this be because democracy always begins with grace and quickly becomes a critical mirror for the dark side of popular opinion? My impression is that populism is most gruesome under dictatorship because people feel no accountability for their negativity. Once their opinions become represented in positions of seeming power, they develop a sense of responsibility for what effect those opinions can have when in power.

 

It seems likely that the same pattern might be repeated in the restive Arab states now. But if extremist governments are the ultimate inheritors of the now highly unstable power in these regions, then they may well support or provide bases, supplies, or cover for al Quaida, and then the War on Terrorism will assuredly be lost forever.

The war on terrorism will never be lost forever. It can't be because it is a fundamental resistance to terrorism that emerges from intimate experience with terrorism itself. The reason democracy developed as a system of checks and balances is because people knew that power can only be checked with power. I often asked myself during the war on terror why so much terrorism was being used against terrorism. Wasn't that fighting fire with fire? Gradually I realized that counterterrorism was not so much about controlling terrorists by fear/intimidation as it was about liberating them from the fear that was already controlling them by exposing them to confrontation with the source of their fear. I don't know if I'm explaining that exactly right, but what I mean is that the propaganda campaign during the war on terror seemed to simultaneously evoke fear and confront deep fears in a way that caused them to dissipate. I don't think people would have lost their post 9-11 fear during the 8 years of Bush if that wasn't the case. To sum up and indescribably complex political process in Marxist terms, power always contains the seeds of its own critique/resistance.

 

 

[CaptainPanic]

You're right that this is the official position that non-terrorist Islam is an ally to US freedom/democracy, but there is also a strong undercurrent of cynicism that views Islam as inherently terroristic because of the treatment of women, etc.

Amazing, isn't it? I cannot be angry at people who think along these lines - I'm just incredibly disappointed about the stupidity of such thoughts...

 

Here we are, in Western countries where women had very few rights just 100 years ago. Where today's sexy women's clothing would certainly have resulted in a visit from the local priest or vicar. Decency was the only way to go. Women listened to their husbands. And now, only 3-4 generations later, we link such treatment of women with terrorism, because a handful of idiots throws stones at women (while billions of people don't). I guess that until about 100 years ago, the entire world was terrorist then.

 

I certainly think that the Wild Wild West was a whole lot more terrorist than any Muslim country we see now...

 

And we're not only saying that Islam has to change, but we also overlook that lots of people already changed. A brainwash seems to come over all Western countries... and we no longer look at the facts. We think of Islam as evil... just like in 1984 - it took only 10 years, and now we regard the new enemy with a fanaticism that was previously reserved for the Evil Communists.

 

It fills me with sadness to see that this is a movement that just creeps on and on and on... it can't be stopped.

 

Anyway, back on topic. The USA obviously should support ANY democratic movement... as it is not the land of the Christians and the home of the true Belief, but the land of the Free and the home of the Brave.

[john5746]

Anyway, back on topic. The USA obviously should support ANY democratic movement... as it is not the land of the Christians and the home of the true Belief, but the land of the Free and the home of the Brave.

 

I disagree, only Siths deal in absolutes.

 

Don't confuse democracy with liberty.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiberal_democracy

 

In contrast to these disputed examples, a classic example of an illiberal democracy is the Republic of Singapore.[6] Conversely, liberal autocracies are regimes with no elections and that are ruled autocratically but have some liberties. Here, a good example is the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong. Both Hong Kong and Singapore are ethnic Chinese majority city-states and former British colonies. However, their political evolution has taken different paths, with Hong Kong residents enjoying the liberal freedoms of the United Kingdom, but, as a colony, without the power to choose its leaders.[7] This contradictory state of affairs was inherited by the People's Republic of China when it resumed control of the territory in 1997. In contrast, Singapore acquired full independence, first from Britain and then from Malaysia in the 1960s. At that time, it was structured as a relatively liberal democracy, albeit with some internal security laws that allowed for detention without trial. Over time, as Singapore's People's Action Party government consolidated power in the 1960s and 1970s, it enacted a number of laws and policies that curtailed constitutional freedoms (such as the right to assemble or form associations), and extended its influence over the media, unions, NGOs and academia. Consequently, although technically free and fair multi-party elections are regularly conducted, the political realities in Singapore (including fear and self-censorship) make participation in opposition politics extremely difficult, leaving the dominant ruling party as the only credible option at the polls.[6] Russia had also moved towards a period of democracy in the early 1990s, but whilst elections remain in place, state control of media is increasing and opposition is difficult.[8]

[lemur]

I certainly think that the Wild Wild West was a whole lot more terrorist than any Muslim country we see now...

 

And we're not only saying that Islam has to change, but we also overlook that lots of people already changed. A brainwash seems to come over all Western countries... and we no longer look at the facts. We think of Islam as evil... just like in 1984 - it took only 10 years, and now we regard the new enemy with a fanaticism that was previously reserved for the Evil Communists.

 

I think it is the History of Sexuality where Foucault notes that sex tends to occur most easily in the most culturally conservative situations. I'm not explaining this exactly right, but basically he was saying that when people are highly integrated in some form of cultural dogma that they don't question, this creates social conditions that favor sex. The reason I mention this is that it puts western sexual liberation in a somewhat contradictory position of being progressive in relation to religious prudishness but at the same time, it tends to be people who are very securely anchored within their cultural institutions who are embracing sexual freedom. Plus sexual desire is a strong driving force behind politics, which combined with the cultural conservatism/reactionism results in a strong will-to-power when it comes to repressing religion and any other culture that suggests sexual control of any kind.

 

The question it evokes for me is when is the goal of sexual liberation sufficiently achieved where people will be totally satisfied with their sexual choices? When no one dares to express a religious or other non-affirmative view of total sexual freedom? Is it possible to have freedom of religion combined with sexual freedom or does one culture have to completely win and re-socialize the other so everyone has the same cultural views?

 

Anyway, back on topic. The USA obviously should support ANY democratic movement... as it is not the land of the Christians and the home of the true Belief, but the land of the Free and the home of the Brave.

Obviously, but that also means that obviously anyone who has an interest in some form of authoritarian power is going to repackage it and sell it as democratic in some way in order to avoid conflict with active pro-democracy. Then the flip-side of that, which convolutes things even more, is that others will witch-hunt true democracy as being authoritarianism in disguise just to promote authoritarian power. The will to authoritarian power is strong and it naturally lends itself to strawmanning and other deceptive approaches to asserting dominance while averting critical evaluation.

Edited January 28, 2011 by lemur

[Marat]

The analysis can be clarified if we look at the prospects in terms of percentages rather than absolutes. When the Arab countries are led by autocratic regimes insensitive to local popular opinion, there is a very high chance that the U.S. can keep those regimes on its side by bribing them with money and the political support they need to prop up their otherwise unsupportable systems. Because these regimes are insulated from popular opinion, there is no instability in this U.S. control generated by the evolving mood of the public.

 

But if these Arab dictatorships become democratic states, then suddenly the U.S. will have a much lower chance of dominating them, since a democratic government has sufficient stability from the support of its own people, so it does not need the U.S. to prop it up. Also, while a dictatorial government can be kept on track by persisting diplomatic arrangements, a democratic state can and must be able to change with each change in the mood of the electorate. If the people suddenly want a mullahtocracy, as the Iranians did in 1979, then suddenly the U.S. control collapses.

 

The worst risk is the existence of the international Islamic terrorist movement, al-Quaida and its various branch offices. This movement has strong popular appeal throughout the Islamic world, but with U.S.-backed dictators in charge of Arab governments, this popular support can be contained. However, a democratic Arab world is open to the possibility that the population may become more susceptible to al-Quaida's message and may allow them to establish bases of support in all the countries which U.S.-backed dictatorships used to keep closed to them.

 

Imagine if the next 'Afghanistan' were not some depopulated, barren, isolated country which would not be all that threatening even if completely taken over by al-Quaida, and were instead Egypt, with 80 million people, oil, the Suez Canal, and occupying a strategic position next to Palestine and Israel.

[lemur]

The analysis can be clarified if we look at the prospects in terms of percentages rather than absolutes. When the Arab countries are led by autocratic regimes insensitive to local popular opinion, there is a very high chance that the U.S. can keep those regimes on its side by bribing them with money and the political support they need to prop up their otherwise unsupportable systems. Because these regimes are insulated from popular opinion, there is no instability in this U.S. control generated by the evolving mood of the public.

 

But if these Arab dictatorships become democratic states, then suddenly the U.S. will have a much lower chance of dominating them, since a democratic government has sufficient stability from the support of its own people, so it does not need the U.S. to prop it up. Also, while a dictatorial government can be kept on track by persisting diplomatic arrangements, a democratic state can and must be able to change with each change in the mood of the electorate. If the people suddenly want a mullahtocracy, as the Iranians did in 1979, then suddenly the U.S. control collapses.

Why are you thinking in terms of inter-regime command-control authoritarianism? Do you prefer that to democracy for some reason? Do you think it will be accepted as democracy if "the US" is attributed responsibility for it? Maybe you are trying to make a subtle point that people look the other way when "the US" is the party to which authoritarian power is attributed? If so, you are right that US patriotism/nationalism/jingoism is as corrupting an emotionalism as any other nationalist-feelings toward any collective identity. They all promote fascist support for authoritarianism to some degree. But is that part of what you're trying to say on some level or not?

 

The worst risk is the existence of the international Islamic terrorist movement, al-Quaida and its various branch offices. This movement has strong popular appeal throughout the Islamic world, but with U.S.-backed dictators in charge of Arab governments, this popular support can be contained. However, a democratic Arab world is open to the possibility that the population may become more susceptible to al-Quaida's message and may allow them to establish bases of support in all the countries which U.S.-backed dictatorships used to keep closed to them.

Again, your language is confusing. You frame ideological conflict as the suppression or liberation of terrorist propaganda and the popular response to it? My impression is that as democracy progresses, the message of al-Quida or other popular ideologies will be brought up and discussed reasonably in public discourse with decreasing tension. To give a personal example, I can read a news story about Osama Bin Ladin suggesting that Americans convert to Islam as an antidote to terrorism and think reasonably about how that might work and what it could mean; yet other people would simply react in terror to the idea of even giving reasonable consideration to any statement attributed to Osama Bin Ladin because they would see that as "giving in to terrorism." Imo, democracy requires being free from the fear of giving reasonable consideration to any opinion/ideology. The only ideologies that shouldn't be reasonably considered are those whose only purpose is to obfuscate or instill fear for the purpose of instilling fear - but how do you assess which messages those are without listening/reading them?

 

Imagine if the next 'Afghanistan' were not some depopulated, barren, isolated country which would not be all that threatening even if completely taken over by al-Quaida, and were instead Egypt, with 80 million people, oil, the Suez Canal, and occupying a strategic position next to Palestine and Israel.

Is it possible that the reason wars are confined to relatively unpopulated areas is to reduce the possibility of using urban populations as strategic pawns in war tactics? It would be sad to see war escalate to levels that affect more civilians, as was the case with WWII, for example, but what can be done to prevent such escalation? Who has to concede to what and at what cost? Would any war authority ever concede to "surrender," and if so why?

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

Perhaps democracy isn't the best solution. The main problem (for the population in question) would be the tyranny of the majority. For example, in the Muslim states alcohol will probably remain illegal even in a democracy, because most of the people consider its use immoral, much like other drugs are treated elsewhere. Similarly, religious freedom probably won't suddenly be tolerated even in a democracy. If these people are to have these unpopular freedoms, they would probably have to be granted them by an authoritarian leader against their will. A constitution could also protect freedoms against the will of the majority by requiring a sufficiently large supermajority. Another way to protect against tyranny of the majority would be with a republic, at least if the representatives are willing to do the right thing even if its unpopular and the people can accept that.

[Marat]

The best model we have for the current situation in Egypt is what happened in Iran in 1979. Iran had been ruled for about a quarter century by a dictator friendly to U.S. interests, the Shah, and although Iran was not a very progressive state, it was still a safe place for foreigners to visit, quite moderate in its cultural usages, and also a very well behaved citizen of the world community. But then, once the Shah was deposed by a popular uprising, the people endorsed a mullahtocracy with all sorts of extreme views, and suddenly Iran became a state backing terrorist organizations in the Middle East and is now striving to get an atomic bomb so it can better threaten other nations in the region. Sometimes the safest regime is a non-democratic one, because a rational dictator can contain the extremist forces in his population for the best interests of the nation. In contrast, if a democracy wants something harmful for it and for the rest of the world, there is no counterweight to popular hysteria achieving what it desires.

 

In this thread I am not really speaking to the issue of what the U.S. should morally do, but only what it should do in terms of raison d'etat. It looks as if Obama for the moment is correctly trying to buy time without alienating either side before events develop to the point where he knows who is going to win, so he opts for the fatuous advice (because he has to say something), that he hopes neither side uses violence and of course the U.S. supports democratic and liberal reforms -- which everyone already knew.

 

With respect to what will happen, I suspect that the Western press is getting ahead of itself, as usual, and is exaggerating the extent of the uprising, just as it did over Tienamen Square and the supposedly imminent revolt in Iran over the 2009 elections. There is no way that a 'revolt' with only 8 deaths so far in a country of 80 million is going to oust a 30-year dictatorship, especially when the crowds already look a little thin on the ground.

[Pangloss]

It looks as if Obama for the moment is correctly trying to buy time without alienating either side before events develop to the point where he knows who is going to win, so he opts for the fatuous advice (because he has to say something), that he hopes neither side uses violence and of course the U.S. supports democratic and liberal reforms -- which everyone already knew.

 

Yes, but I would remove the word "fatuous" and replace it with "sage".

 

And just to add a bit of political dimension to the discussion, IMO conservative pundits and the right side of popular news outlets (e.g. Fox News) are playing a very dangerous game on this issue in criticizing the Obama administration. If John McCain were president right now he'd be in exactly the same position, and saying exactly the same thing.

 

That said, it's a mistake to suggest (as many are) that this is an effort for democratic reform. This is about economics. Unemployment is the motivator here, and the correct comparison is Paris in 2010, not Tienanmen Square in 1989. This is nothing more (or less) than the dark underbelly of the 21st century global economy.

[lemur]

Perhaps democracy isn't the best solution. The main problem (for the population in question) would be the tyranny of the majority. For example, in the Muslim states alcohol will probably remain illegal even in a democracy, because most of the people consider its use immoral, much like other drugs are treated elsewhere. Similarly, religious freedom probably won't suddenly be tolerated even in a democracy. If these people are to have these unpopular freedoms, they would probably have to be granted them by an authoritarian leader against their will. A constitution could also protect freedoms against the will of the majority by requiring a sufficiently large supermajority. Another way to protect against tyranny of the majority would be with a republic, at least if the representatives are willing to do the right thing even if its unpopular and the people can accept that.

If you say that "democracy isn't the best solution," what basis do you have for arguing that the resulting authoritarian dictatorship shouldn't be one that oppresses you instead of someone else? If your point is that some authoritarianism is needed to protect freedom, that is true and is clearly expressed in the cooperation between the courts and the executive branch in multi-branch government of checks and balances. In fact, the fundamental difference between authoritarian governance and democracy is, imo, the view that power gets checked and balanced by multiple powers in a democratic republic whereas in an authoritarian government there is an expectation of central power having a monopoly with total submission by all subjects to the sovereign, however that sovereignty may be institutionalized. So the goal of democratic power would be to check and balance majoritarianism, not use it as a basis for totalitarian domination. This is sometimes done by allowing the majority to elect representatives who are then publicly subject to criticism by the media and each other, which can provide popular minorities with ideological ammunition and other tactics of resistance against majority ideologies. The problem is that this tactic can spill over into obstructionism when people don't attain a sufficient sense of legitimacy of voice to assert constructive opinions in discourse instead of continuing to react to and resist others. In fact, I would say there is a whole cult of resistance that develops in democracy simply because people get so good at reacting against power that they come to fear the criticism they would be hit with if they themselves embraced an affirmative approach to exercising power. Then this becomes yet another impetus toward authoritarianism as everyone wants to be a critic and precious few or no one can rise above the intimidation of critique, sarcasm, and humiliation to express sincere ideas about how to move forward.

Edited January 29, 2011 by lemur

[Pangloss]

Former foreign policy advisor Elliott Abrams has an interesting take on the situation in today's Washington Post:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/28/AR2011012806833.html

 

The rose-colored-glasses bit about how tragic it is that Obama didn't continue Bush's saintly policy of demanding freedom in the Middle East is completely dismissible, IMO, but I thought this point was interesting:

 

The massive and violent demonstrations underway in Egypt ... are exploding, once and for all, the myth of Arab exceptionalism.

 

So a new set of questions becomes critical. What lesson will Arab regimes learn? Will they undertake the steady reforms that may bring peaceful change, or will they conclude that exiled Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali erred only by failing to shoot and club enough demonstrators? And will our own government learn that dictatorships are never truly stable? For beneath the calm surface enforced by myriad security forces, the pressure for change only grows - and it may grow in extreme and violent forms when real debate and political competition are denied.

 

The regimes of Ben Ali and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak proffered the same line to Washington: It's us or the Islamists. For Tunisia, a largely secular nation with a literacy rate of 75 percent and per capita GDP of $9,500, this claim was never defensible. In fact, Ben Ali jailed moderates, human rights advocates, editors - anyone who represented what might be called "hope and change."

 

...

 

Rule by emergency decree long enough, and you end up creating a genuine emergency. And Egypt has one now.

 

This is very different from most press stories I've read about this, which never seem to quite get around to the question of responsibility and causation aside from half-baked expositions about the power of Twitter and YouTube.

[lemur]

What is the basis for a popular majority in these situations? I understand it is some form of Islamic fundamentalism but is there also ethnicity/tribalism as a defining factor? In other words, are the coming regimes going to be simply religious or religious-socialist (where "socialist" refers to "social solidarity among members of a group/race" as it did in "national socialism"). I guess what I'm asking is if popular majoritarianism could lead to a form of democratic republic within the confines of strict Islamic behavioral restrictions or whether there is also likely to be social-controls along the lines of race/ethnicity and class/status that threaten to resist freedom even beyond that of Islamic morality.

[jackson33]

This is very different from most press stories I've read about this, which never seem to quite get around to the question of responsibility and causation aside from half-baked expositions about the power of Twitter and You Tube. [/Quote]

Pangloss, I'm using your comment only in introducing another angle to this issue, not arguing with anyone.

 

Mohamed Bouazizi, the fruit vendor who died after setting himself on fire, has become a symbol of defiance in Tunisia.

 

The revolution in Tunisia was born through a slap in the face of Mohamed Bouazizi by a honest but arrogant lady municipal inspector, Faida Hamdy, 45, in Sidi Bouzid, a police officer’s daughter. This revolution was not triggered by a political speech or by some provocative act of repression by the dictator. It was set in motion by an altercation between a honest but cruel municipal inspector and a honest and poor vegetable vendor. [/Quote]

 

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7962888-slap-in-the-face-of-a-poor-vegetable-vendor-set-off-a-revolution-in-tunisia

 

Geraldo Rivera, last night on his live week-end show, started his two hour (special) indicating this event, led to other revolts in the Middle East. Indirectly I agree, but the precedence for ground swell political revolts, was not born with the today's communication, only having to mention the "American Revolution" itself. Remember that event led to the French Revolution and many others afterwards....

 

While IMO, the power of the Internet, along with Facebook, Twitter, You Tube and other social programing has certainly changed speeds for where actions can be taken. I'd suggest you go back over "The Tea Party" and all involved and pending, for a directly correlation between what's going on today in the Middle East.

What worries me; Aside from at least many thousands of Egyptian, appearing to be younger, of the 80 Million declaring "they want their President (Hosni Mubarak 82 yo and elections 9-10 months off) to resign NOW", I've seen no indication of a constructive goal. I understand elections in Egypt may be rigged, probably will be again anyway, by either internal or external forces, but not only is this the general method used, it's arguably possible in any Country, even in the US.

 

I guess what I'm asking is if popular majoritarianism could lead to a form of democratic republic within the confines of strict Islamic behavioral restrictions or whether there is also likely to be social-controls along the lines of race/ethnicity and class/status that threaten to resist freedom even beyond that of Islamic morality. [/Quote]

 

lemur; With regards to Egypt, Obama chose Egypt for his speech to the Islamic Community and the probable (my opinion) few that really want a western style democracy, over their 5000 year Islamic Style Rule, have taken his comments out of context to justify actions at this time or the speech was premature...

[Pangloss]

We can hope that with the aid of modern insight they'll skip right through the pitfalls of majority rule and go right to the recognition of inalienable human rights.

 

I think it's interesting that some view Islam as all peaceful and docile when it comes to treatment under the law, but dangerous and untrustworthy when it comes to deciding its own fate.

[Marat]

The sad fact is that 'inalienable rights' with any real force are extremely rare outside the U.S. Even in democratic countries, these rights are usually crippled in effect by 'rights limitation clauses' in the constitution, which allow rights to be watered down to the vanishing point for just about any interest you can imagine, no matter how trivial or arbitrary. The major formula which achieves this is the rule that rights can be reduced for 'public morals,' which includes any value the majority happens to like better than someone else's freedom. Even the European Union's rights charter uses this formula.

 

So the notion that if the majority were to come into control of a country with no historical experience with human rights, the rule of law, democracy, pluralism, relativism of values, the reformation, or any other force which would open them up to tolerance for open-mindedness and liberty, we would have anything else but an invigorated monster before us, just like Iran became after its democratic revolution in 1979 removed the dictatorial Shah, seems naive.

 

If you don't want to see adulterers being stoned under Sharia law in Cairo and Egypt cooperating with Iran in obtaining an atomic bomb to support al-Quaida's operations, then you had better hope America's local bottle-stopper of impassioned popular forces in Egypt -- Hosni Mubarak -- stays firmly in place.